|
The Regular Meeting of the Doylestown Township
Board of Supervisors was held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August
19, 2008 at the Doylestown Township Municipal Building, 425
Wells Road, Doylestown, PA., Members of the Board of Supervisors
in attendance included Barbara N. Lyons, Chairman, E. Thomas
Scarborough, Jr., Vice Chairman; Barbara Eisenhardt, Cynthia
Philo, and Jeffrey Bennett. Others in attendance included
Jeffrey Garton, Township Solicitor; Stephen White, Chief of
Police; Mario Canales, Township Engineer; and Stephanie Mason,
Township Manager.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Lyons announced that this meeting is being
recorded for purposes of future television and for preparation
of the minutes.
PRESENTATION:
Sunrise Living Assisted Living:
Solicitor Garton explained that prior to February
19, 2008 representatives of Sunrise requested a change to the
zoning ordinance to permit a C-17 use, which is an assisted
living facility within a C-2 zoning district. At a public
hearing held on February 19th the Board voted not to
adopt that ordinance.
Edward Murphy, Attorney representing the
applicant, noted that we designed the stormwater management
system and, at the end of our presentation, he asked the Board
to consider authorizing staff to re-advertise the ordinance that
was denied in February so we will have a future opportunity to
ask the Board to consider the adoption of the zoning ordinance
amendment. He asked Mr. Joseph Zadlow, Architect for the project
to explain the details.
Mr. Zadlow explained that there is a drainage
area of 32 acres above our site contributing stormwater that
runs through our site, which we have the ability to control
before running down stream to our neighbors. We are able to
modify an existing basin that is on the Held property to retain
stormwater. The amount of water we are able to retain varies
with the intensity of the storm. In a one-year storm, there is
10.39 cubic feet per second of water flowing downstream. After
modification of the basin, the flow will be 3.82 cubic feet per
second. That is a flow reduction of 63%. In a two-year storm, we
reduced the flow by 66%; in a five-year storm, by 20%; in a 25
year storm, by 36%; in a 50-year storm, by 24%; and a 100-year
storm, by 13%.
There is a bank stabilization program that we
will participate in, if and when, we proceed with this project.
Mr. Canales commented that he reviewed the
reports submitted by the applicant. They are managing the water
onsite per the ordinance, and the existing basin has a 33 acre
watershed going through it. He asked for that basin to be
modified for the benefit of the downstream communities and it
has been. The applicant has done everything they can do and it
is up to the Board to decide to move forward with this project.
Mr. Scarborough asked will the applicant be
improving or worsening the situation?
Mr. Canales replied the applicant is not making
it worse. It would be improved, but we will not see any visible
difference. If you take the 33 acres and design a basin to
today’s standards, it might hold all of the stormwater from the
Sunrise site.
Ms. Philo asked is there some Held property that
is not part of this site.
Mr. Murphy replied that is correct.
Mr. Bennett said the proposal is a change in use.
Would a permitted use be more suitable with regards to
stormwater than what this applicant can do?
Mr. Canales replied possibly, but not to a
significant degree.
Ms. Lyons asked Mr. Narducci if he knows what Mr.
Held is planning for the remainder for that parcel.
Mr. Narducci replied that Mr. Held has no
immediate plans, but anything that would be done would be in the
confines of the ordinance and stormwater management.
Ms. Lyons asked for any public comments.
John Everett, 2111 Turk Road, asked does the 700
acre watershed drain through that property?
Mr. Murphy replied only 33 acres drains through
that property.
Bill Long, Bunker Hollow Road, commented a number
of issues have not been addressed such as what is the impact of
the total development of the property and this use is a
violation of the stipulation agreement.
Solicitor Garton replied the stipulation
agreement related to the plan is not for the current plan of the
Sunrise application. So if this project were to proceed; that
stipulation agreement would be null and void and the rights
granted to the parties in that stipulation would disappear.
Dan Rackers asked Solicitor Garton if he is
satisfied with the answer he received on the discrepancy.
Solicitor Garton replied during the review
process of the application, the Township Engineer and residents
will have any issues associated with stormwater fully vetted.
William Lahr, Bunker Hollow Road, commented that
the ideal situation for that property is to remain as is. Since
Sunrise has a low density plan and is willing to work with the
Township and residents to solve the water runoff problem, the
Board should consider it.
Mr. Long commented that Mr. Held’s proposal was
in violation of the stipulation agreement. What has changed?
Solicitor Garton replied Mr. Held is not trying
to construct a plan which he thought was consistent with the
stipulation. At this point, Mr. Held could not build that plan
under existing ordinances.
Ms. Eisenhardt made a MOTION, seconded by Mr.
Scarborough to authorize staff to re-advertise the ordinance for
the Sunrise Assisted Living Plan.
MOTION was ADOPTED 5-0.
Ms. Lyons announced that Mr. Grasso called her to
say that he has withdrawn his application to amend the zoning
amendment for the intersection of Rt. 313 and Rt. 263. He will
proceed in developing that corner with what is permitted to be
developed there now. According to Mr. Grasso, there might be a
Phase II for the LI section with an application for a use
change.
Ms. Philo made a MOTION, seconded by Ms.
Eisenhardt to rescind the Board’s prior MOTION to advertise that
change of zoning for a public hearing.
MOTION was ADOPTED 5-0.
Ms. Lyons noted that the Board has received the
petition signed by hundreds of residents regarding the zoning
change for Routes 313 and 263 and asked for any comments
regarding this matter.
April Bohmler, 881 Spring Valley Road, asked
what is Mr. Grasso planning to develop there?
Ms. Lyons replied he suggested a CVS and a bank.
Ms. Bohmler asked is a CVS and bank permissible?
Solicitor Garton replied it will be required to
go through the entire subdivision and land development process
and notices will be sent to the adjacent property owners.
Dominick Speara, Rogers Road, asked when will the
CVS be built and will it be built on Rogers Road or Rt. 313?
Ms. Lyons replied she does not have a timeline
and the development would be towards the corner of Rt. 313 and
263.
Pierre Menard, 1 Old Nursery Way, commented there
are a lot of people in the neighborhood that have a vested
interest on what is going on at that corner and a lot of people
were not notified.
Dave Gould, 79 Valley Drive, noted that a
petition was submitted with over 324 signatures and he will
continue to get more signatures as the neighbors are concerned
about an increase in traffic.
Susan Nardi, 13 Old Nursery Way, commented that
we all saw the “real” Mr. Grasso last week who sent the
neighbors a message that the “rules do not apply to him.”
James Bingler, 29 Turkey Lane, thanked Ms. Mason
for her quick response. He provided photos to the Board of trees
taken down under the direction of Mr. Grasso.
Joe O’Malley, 138 Rogers Road, asked for the
penalties that Mr. Grasso will be forced to pay for what he has
done to that beautiful parcel.
Ms. Lyons replied he received a violation letter
on August 15th and he has 30 days to respond.
Solicitor Garton added there will be a financial
consequence and what he has done will impact his development.
Mr. Speara provided before/after pictures to the
Board.
A resident of Brook Drive commented that when we
have the next rainstorm, it will be a mess on Rogers Road. What
is the Township going to do about it?
Ms. Mason replied as part of the violation
notices, the soil and erosion control ordinance was referenced
and we called the Conservation District.
Mr. Canales added that he asked the developer to
restore the area out front that was destroyed by the equipment
coming in/out. He will follow up on it.
Rick Baldwin, 109 Rogers Road, commented that the
CVS and bank are commercial and cannot be built in the LI
District.
A resident commented that Doylestown Township has
numerous CVS’s and banks and do we need more? Should the Board
consider alternative uses for those lands or will this be
another corner with a strip mall? Will the Board consider that
the community wants land preservation, more places for our
children to play and bike paths and not more CVS’s and banks?
Jack Cassidy, 67 Valley Drive, commented that
this property is being developed for Buckingham and who’s to say
that Mr. Grasso will not take the little parcel of where the CVS
and bank will be and expand it.
David Gould, 79 Valley Road, asked will Mr.
Grasso need to go through the same process and meet with the
neighbors again?
Solicitor Garton replied Mr. Grasso is not
required to meet with the neighbors regarding his application.
He is required to meet with the Planning Commission and the
neighbors will be notified of that.
Mr. Bingler commented the Mr. Grasso addressed
the neighbors and said he was going to withdraw asking for the
C-2 zoning change and that there would no sewer and water
infrastructure.
Ms. Lyons replied Mr. Grasso indicated that
without the intended application, he would not have the
resources to do the infrastructure improvements.
Doris Clegg commented that all of the residents
are so well organized and should stay that way.
Laura Buegler, 31 Kuhn Drive, asked if rain comes
within 30 days and there is more damage on that lot, is there a
way for the Township to impose that it be repaired now?
Solicitor Garton replied the Conservation
District may have that authority.
Cecile Balizet, 59 Foxcroft Drive, commented,
that property is a gateway to Doylestown and now the ground
looks horrible. It would be in the best interest of the Township
to make it more welcoming.
The Board recessed the meeting at 7:46 p.m. and
the meeting resumed at 7:48 p.m.
VISITOR/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Doris Clegg asked isn’t too early for political
signs to be posted.
Solicitor Garton replied political signs are
First Amendment.
John Everett, 2111 Turk Road, asked about
enforcement on illegal posted commercial signs.
Solicitor Garton replied the company can be fined
per day and per sign.
Joe Paternostro commented he previously asked for
a definition of an emergency response and has not received an
answer. West Nile Virus has been found in the tri-state area and
is the Township and Borough going to spray the local ponds.
Ms. Mason replied West Nile Virus is handled by
the Bucks County Health Department and property owners can give
them permission to spray for it. She will contact Doylestown
Borough Manager, John Davis about the pond.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ms. Lyons announced that Doylestown Township
Administrative offices will be closed on Monday, September 1,
2008, in observance of Labor Day. The next meeting of the Board
of Supervisors is scheduled for Tuesday, September 2, 2008.
MINUTES APPROVAL:
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Mr.
Bennett to approve the minutes of the Board of Supervisors
meeting of August 5, 2008.
MOTION was ADOPTED 4-0-1. Ms. Eisenhardt
abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
Ms. Mason noted there are no agenda items for the
meeting of September 2, 2008 unless there are items from this
meeting.
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION to cancel the
meeting of September 2, 2008.
Board of Supervisors
Meeting
August 19, 2008
Mr. Bennett asked for that motion to be withdrawn
until the end of this meeting.
Mr. Scarborough withdrew his motion.
REPORTS:
Solicitor: None.
Police Chief: None.
Township Engineer:
None.
Manager: None.
Supervisors:
Mr. Bennett commented that regarding televising
the meetings, at the last meeting, he posed the question about
any potential liability for televising live. He understood,
based on prior presentations by the TAB Board that we would not
be televising live; that they would be taped. It would be
prudent for the Board to be proactive in having a policy in
place on televising these meetings. His concern is that there is
a possibility of inappropriate language and confidential
information could be somehow disclosed and it would be
broadcasted repeatedly over two weeks with no editing.
Mr. Scarborough replied the TAB Board is working
on a policy and operations manual at the present time. We
already have a policy and operations manual for our TV station
and this will be added to it.
Ms. Eisenhardt noted that other municipalities
have been televising their meetings. Do we have copies of their
manuals as a guide?
Mr. Scarborough replied yes.
Ms. Philo announced that she attended a federal
funding workshop held by Congressman Pat Murphy in regards to
funding opportunities for local government. She encouraged
residents to come to all of our committee meetings. The Grange
Fair was a wonderful event.
Mr. Scarborough commented he toured the parks in
the Township and it was an eye opener to see what the Park &
Recreation Dept. and the EAC has been done with our parks.
Ms. Eisenhardt noted that the Board was going to
have a public meeting to establish guidelines for public policy
regulations for employees of the Township regarding vehicle use.
Ms. Lyons replied a meeting with the department
heads will be held to set policy alternatives and then it will
be presented to the Board for consideration.
Ms. Eisenhardt commented that the Board approved
putting a referendum on the ballot for the Central Bucks
Ambulance asking for a tax for the ambulance. She would like to
see a synopsis of what the tax money would pay for and the
purpose for it so the voters have an understanding before going
to the polls in November. Will the Board reconsider allowing
them to submit something in the Township’s newsletter and place
an ad that would be paid for by the Board?
Solicitor Garton replied the Board can provide a
means for a written report in a newsletter, but they cannot
spend Township money advocating a referendum question.
Doris Clegg, resident, commented that the
information should be neutral and the Board should not try to
influence the voters.
Ms. Eisenhardt explained that she has not taken a
position on what the article should say, she just asked for an
article to be put in the newsletter explaining what the
referendum is.
NEW BUSINESS:
Eastburn Tract – Preliminary Minor Subdivision:
Solicitor Garton noted that this is a plan
prepared by Gilmore & Associates dated, December 26, 2007, last
revised, April 7, 2008. The applicant has a subdivision plan for
15 lots with 14 new homes and one existing home. The matter has
gone before the Planning Commission several times and there are
outstanding issues.
Richard Zaveta, Zaveta Construction Co.
introduced Travis Hutchinson and Eric Clase, Project Engineer
with Gilmore & Assoc. We received preliminary approval by the
Planning Commission, but there were concerns about public
utilities. We will maintain our onsite well status and our
individual lot septic permits. The Bucks County Department of
Health has certified that we have a traditional means of septic
affluent disposal for each lot.
The project consists of 50 acres with frontage on
Windover Lane and Short Road with two cul-de-sacs. Any changes
that have taken place are related to stormwater management. He
asked the Board to consider preliminary approval of the plan.
Solicitor Garton reviewed the following
conditions and waivers of the plan that are listed in the
Pickering, Corts & Summerson review letter dated, 4/21/08.
Waiver request from Section 153-20.C. (10) - The Township
Engineer is not in favor of granting this waiver due to existing
wells and septic systems that may be within 100 feet of the
property that should be shown.
Mr. Clase replied that is a will comply to show
wells and septic systems within 100 feet of the property so we
are still asking for the waiver, but modifying it to show the
Township Engineer’s request.
Mr. Canales noted that is acceptable and the
Board agreed.
Waiver request from Section 153-24.B (1) – The
applicant is proposing 24 foot wide streets. The Board agreed.
Waiver request from Section 153-24 B (2) (a) –
The applicant is proposing no improvements along Short Road. The
Board agreed.
Waiver request 153-24 E. (6) – The cul-de-sac is
steeper than required by the ordinance.
Mr. Clase replied we are proposing 4% with
retaining walls. The Board agreed.
Waiver request from Section 153-25 C – The EAC
recommends no waiver.
Mr. Clase replied we will pay a fee in-lieu-of
rather than a path through the development.
The Board agreed.
Waiver from Section 153-26 – The applicant wants
the character of an old country road. The Board agreed.
Waiver from Section 153-27 (A) (5) – The
applicant proposes 10% grade of construction of driveway. The
EAC has an issue with this waiver.
Mr. Clase replied there are a few driveways we
are proposing at 10% to protect the natural resources onsite.
The site is wooded and to protect the larger caliber trees we
went to 10%. To go down to 8%, it will be harder to tie the
homes into the site and we would have to remove some of the
larger trees.
Ms. Philo asked for the EAC’s comments on this
matter.
Doris Clegg replied their comments related to the
amount of runoff water.
Mr. Clase added that all of the runoff is
captured within the swale along the road and then goes into our
pond, which discharges into the existing pond onsite and then to
the existing stream and into the culvert through Short Road.
Rob Conover, 72 Short Road, asked about the
retention of water coming off of the street into Short Road.
Mr. Clase replied as the road approaches Short
Road, we are capturing it in an inlet system and directing it
along Short Road and discharging it through the existing swale.
Solicitor Garton noted that the applicant has not
proposed to provide recreation land and instead will provide a
fee in-lieu-of to be paid to the Township consistent with the
ordinance. Mr. Clase agreed.
Solicitor Garton said the Board needs to decide
whether it is satisfactory for the homeowners’ association to
own and maintain the streets internally as well as the
stormwater management facilities. The Board agreed.
Solicitor Garton asked does the Board approve
using the ultimate right-of-way along Short Road on the property
subject to be developed. The Board agreed.
Solicitor Garton asked does the Board agree to
the shape and size of the lots. The Board agreed.
Solicitor Garton asked is the Board satisfied
that the lots will not be “cookie cutters.” The Board agreed.
Solicitor Garton noted that the Board has agreed
to make certain waiver requests conditioned upon the applicant
paying a fee in-lieu-of those waivers. The amount will be
determined between now and final approval. As an offsite
contribution, the applicant will pay $1,000 for each new lot and
will be paid at time the building permit is drawn. Also, the
Board must be in receipt of all permits and approvals from any
agencies having jurisdiction over this project including the
Bucks County Conservation District. He asked for a copy of the
hydro-geological report as required by our ordinance.
Mr. Zaveta replied he will provide that report
between now and final.
Solicitor Garton referred to Section 153-23 D –
Lot 12 has the installation of an extensive retaining wall. The
Board should review the configuration of that lot.
Mr. Clase replied we will show the Board what it
looks like and then we will work with the Township Engineer to
show that it will work structurally.
Mr. Zaveta provided pictures to the Board and,
after further discussion the consensus of the Board was that
they will explore the slope issue with the developer.
Solicitor Garton asked what is the plan with
respect to lighting?
Mr. Zaveta replied it is our preference not to
provide traditional street lighting.
Mr. Conover, resident, commented that he would
not like street lighting.
Mr. Everett, resident, asked do all intersections
have to be lit?
Chief White replied only areas that have
difficult site distances at nighttime would be asked to have
street lighting by PECO.
The Board agreed to no street lighting.
Solicitor Garton continued that the applicant is
compliant with the zoning report dated, April 23, 2008 and
incompliance with the Bucks County Planning Commission report
dated, January 24, 2008.
Mr. Conover and Lucy Brennen, residents, asked
about a public well.
Solicitor Garton replied there will be no public
well.
Roger Joseph, 108 Spring Meadow Road, asked about
wells on new development.
Solicitor Garton replied our subdivision and land
development ordinance requires that an applicant show the
locations of wells and septic systems on properties within 100
feet of the edge of their property, and the applicant agreed to
comply.
Mr. Conover asked will this development affect
the wells in this area?
Solicitor Garton replied there will be a well
ordinance that deals with that issue.
Michelle Shame, resident, asked is the idea of a
planned-community a trend Doylestown Township is heading in?
Ms. Lyons replied no.
Doris Clegg asked for clarification on the
property management group and homeowners’ association.
Mr. Zaveta replied during the construction
process and up to which time we dedicate the community, his
company maintains the roads and right-of-ways. After completion
of the project and after Board’s approval, we would then enact a
homeowners’ association.
Ms Philo asked will this be a gated community?
Mr. Zaveta replied no, but we will have a small
discreet sign to the community.
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Ms.
Eisenhardt to approve the preliminary major subdivision plan of
the Eastburn Tract subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Pickering, Corts &
Summerson review letter dated April 21, 2008, with the
understanding that, as part of the approval process, the Board
of Supervisors granted the following waivers from the provisions
of the Doylestown Township Subdivision Land Development
Ordinance:
(a) From the provisions of Section
1530-20.C(10) which requires the showing of the water courses as
well as on-site septic system, storm water management and other
features within 400 feet of the property, it being understood
that the Applicant will show all of the features within 100 feet
of the Applicant’s property;
(b) From the provisions of Section
153-24.B(1) which requires the minimum width of cartway for
residential streets to be 26 feet. Both of the roads proposed
in this project are 20 feet wide;
(c) From the provisions of Section
153-24.B(2)(a) which states that all subdivisions along existing
streets shall effectuate a widening of the cartway and
right-of-way to provide a width from centerline to sideline of
the cartway right-of-way equal to one-half the total width shown
in Section 153-24.B(1). Applicant proposed no improvements
along Short Road;
(d) From the provisions of Section
153-24.E(6) which requires that all approaches from streets of
lower order to an intersection are not to exceed three (3%)
percent of the distance of 100 feet measured from the nearest
right-of-way line of the intersecting street. The approach to
Short Road from Road B is in excess of the required three (3%)
percent;
(e) From the provisions of Section
153-25.C which requires all land developments to establish a
bike/hike path in accordance with the Township
Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation Plan;
(f) From the provisions of Section 153-26
which requires curbs to be installed in every residential
street, private street and existing roads which the Applicant
proposed none; and
(g) From the provisions of Section
153-27.A(5) which states that a driveway shall be constructed to
a maximum grade of eight (8%) percent. Applicant proposed ten
(10%) percent.
2. Applicant to pay a fee in lieu of
recreation land in accordance with the provisions of the
Doylestown Township Ordinance;
3. All private streets and storm water
management facilities shall be owned and managed by a
homeowner’s association established by the applicant with the
understanding that the appropriate protection shall be afforded
to the Township such that it may enter upon the premises and
effectuate the maintenance of storm water management facilities
in the event the homeowner’s association shall fail to do so,
which said right shall be memorialized by an easement or other
document recorded of record, which said easement shall be
subject to the approval of the Township Solicitor;
4. The Township will accept dedication of
the ultimate right-of-way along Short Road;
5. The Board of Supervisors approved the
configuration of the lots;
6. Applicant to pay a fee in lieu of the
waivers granted pursuant to this approval, which said waivers
include the payment of a fee in lieu of improvements to Short
Road including curbs, a fee in lieu of the width of the internal
streets, a fee in lieu of the construction of the
pedestrian/bicycle path, a fee in lieu of the installation of
street lights and sidewalks. The exact amount shall be
determined between now and the consideration of any final plan;
7. Applicant shall pay a fee of $1,000
for each new lot as an off-site contribution, which said fee
shall be paid at the time each building permit for each new lot
is requested;
8. Receipt of all permits and approvals
from any agencies having jurisdiction over such matters
including, but not limited to, the Bucks County Board of Health
and the Bucks County Conservation District;
9. Applicant shall provide a
hydrogeological report as required by the provisions of Section
153-41.C9(3) for review by the Township prior to the Township
considering for approval any final plans;
10. The design and propriety of the
installation of a retaining wall 950 linear feet in length
reaching a height of 24 feet in one location shall be deferred
to final plan with the understanding that the Township Engineer
shall review the propriety of any proposed retaining wall or
other means by which the applicant determines to grade proposed
Lot 12;
11. Compliance with the Boucher & James
Report dated April 24, 2008;
12. The Board of Supervisors agreed to
waive the installation of any street lighting but, as noted
previously, the Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of same;
13. Compliance with the Pennoni Report
dated April 23, 2008;
14. Compliance with the Bucks County
Planning Commission Report dated January 24, 2008 to the extent
relevant; and
15. No public well will be installed and/or
developed on the Applicant’s property.
MOTION was ADOPTED 5-0.
John Butterworth, Windover Lane, asked about
signage introducing the area.
Mr. Zaveta replied we will have a marketing sign
that is approved by the Township.
2009 Financial Requirements & MMO for Pension:
The Board acknowledged receipt of the 2009
Financial Requirements & MMO for Pension.
Stormwater
Funding Request:
Mr. John requested additional funding to move the
stormwater program forward. The scope of work proposed by
Conestoga Rovers & Associates in order to comply with the NPDES
permit for clean stream includes identifying the sources of
contaminants by televising certain storm piping and dye testing
individual sanitary systems. The cost for this work is $46,030;
however, he is requesting $50,000 because there may be
additional work needed.
Mr. Bennett asked it is expected that we will
have to increase the amount of money budgeted for this project.
Mr. John replied the cost may stay at about
$50,000.
Ms. Philo noted that $30,000 was budgeted and the
request is for $46,000 additional so the total for this year is
$80,000.
Mr. John replied that is correct. The amount of
$50,000 will carry the project through until next spring.
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Ms.
Eisenhardt to approve the request of $50,000 for the stormwater
project as noted by Mr. John.
Ms. Philo asked was this additional work planned
for.
Mr. John replied he did not plan for this last
year.
MOTION was ADOPTED 5-0.
TREASURER’S REPORT:
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Mr.
Bennett to approve the Treasurer’s Report of August 19, 2008.
MOTION was ADOPTED 5-0.
BILLS LIST:
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Mr.
Bennett to approve the Bills List for August 19, 2008 in the
amount of $940,163.34.
MOTION was ADOPTED 3-2. Ms. Philo and Ms.
Eisenhardt opposed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ms. Lyons announced that Doylestown Township
Administrative offices will be closed on Monday, September 1,
2008, in observance of Labor Day.
Mr. Scarborough made a MOTION, seconded by Mr.
Bennett to cancel the Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, September 2, 2008.
MOTION was ADOPTED 3-2. Ms. Philo and Ms.
Eisenhardt opposed.
Ms. Eisenhardt renewed her request that if the
Board continues to cancel their meetings that it be declared at
the reorganization meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Mason, Township Manager
sev
|
Authored by Development Solutions